Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Anti-Semitic Jews. Is that like Judischen Judenhasser?

---

Never heard of him/it and google doesn't help.

Not sure that you've understood.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is rather my point, leo.

---

But Jesus didn't claim to be messiah in the synoptics - messianic secret and all that.

---

No that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:

quote:

---

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
if you'll forgive me, that's another assertion without an argument.

---

I have a whole blog devoted to it - the ourworking of 3 years discussions in the Council of Christians and Jews.

---

I'm sorry, but in general people tend to argue for their points here on the boards, not by proxy by waving vaguely in the direction of their blogs. That seems a fairly reasonable standard of discourse for a discussion board to me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No[t] that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:

quote:

---

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)

---

---

The only place in mark where this happens - the climax at the end of the continuiing 'messianic secret.'

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I repeat, there are plenty other teachings, sayings and claims made by Jesus - even in the synoptics - both about Himself and His mission which are nowhere to be found in the rabbinical material you have cited.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No[t] that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:

quote:

---

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)

---

---

The only place in mark where this happens - the climax at the end of the continuiing 'messianic secret.'

---

Ha! This "climax" is the disproof of the theory. I think this just shows what utter bunkum the "messianic secret" theory is. Is there any scholar out there who has held to it for the last 60 years anyway?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Is there any scholar out there who has held to it for the last 60 years anyway?

---

pretty much all of them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Wrede's [Messianic Secret] theory enjoyed its highest level of acceptance in the 1920s, and support for it began to decline thereafter as criticisms of the theory were provided based on multiple new arguments.

[...]

By the mid-1970s the Messianic Secret theory no longer existed as Wrede had proposed it.

[...]

G. E. Ladd , a former Baptist professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, stated that: "The 'Messanic Secret' is a clever theory, but utterly lacking in evidence".

---

quote:

---

Wrede's theory is not acceptable as it stands.

---

quote:

---

The major Christological contention of Wrede cannot be upheld. Even if the commands to silence after the miracles of healing are invented subsequently, the fact of these miracles (unless they too are invented) must constitute a messianic claim [...] the whole tone of Jesus' proclamation, from its first opening with 'The kingship of God has come near' (1.14-15), is messianic. A much larger demolition-job needs to be done on the historicity of Mark if all public messianic indications are to be removed from the lifetime of Jesus. The miraculous feedings are a sign that Jesus is a second Moses, and so a messianic figure. Peter's messianic confession cannot have been invented subsequently because of its slur on the chief apostle. The messianic entry into Jerusalem may have been built up, but the deliberate entry on a donkey must have been intended by Jesus messianically. Finally the cleansing of the Temple must have messianic overtones, as the reaction to it by the Jewish authorities shows, both in their demand for Jesus' authority and in the accusation at the trial.

It is further impossible to explain Jesus' own claims unless they include messianic overtones. In particular his assembly of his own little community of the Twelve, his own qahal (= community, 3.13-14), parallel to Israel, implies that he is the representative of the Lord who originally gathered Israel to be his own special people. The same (delegated?) divine authority is implied by the claim to forgive sin (2.10) and to be Lord of the Sabbath (2.28). Particularly related to the end-time expectation of the messiah is the claim to be the bridegroom (2.19).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Thank you for engaging with this (tangent) but you are looking too much to Wrede. Modern scholars like J. D. Dunn also posit it. As does Norman Perrin.

---

quote:

---

1) Even if the commands to silence after the miracles of healing are invented subsequently, the fact of these miracles (unless they too are invented) must constitute a messianic claim[.]

2) the whole tone of Jesus' proclamation, from its first opening with 'The kingship of God has come near' (1.14-15), is messianic.

A much larger demolition-job needs to be done on the historicity of Mark if all public messianic indications are to be removed from the lifetime of Jesus.

3) The miraculous feedings are a sign that Jesus is a second Moses, and so a messianic figure. Peter's messianic confession cannot have been invented subsequently because of its slur on the chief apostle.

4) The messianic entry into Jerusalem may have been built up, but the deliberate entry on a donkey must have been intended by Jesus messianically.

5) the cleansing of the Temple must have messianic overtones, as the reaction to it by the Jewish authorities shows, both in their demand for Jesus' authority and in the accusation at the trial.

It is further impossible to explain Jesus' own claims unless they include messianic overtones.

6) In particular his assembly of his own little community of the Twelve, his own qahal (= community, 3.13-14), parallel to Israel, implies that he is the representative of the Lord who originally gathered Israel to be his own special people.

7) The same [...] divine authority is implied by the claim to forgive sin (2.10) and to be Lord of the Sabbath (2.28).

8) Particularly related to the end-time expectation of the messiah is the claim to be the bridegroom (2.19).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this because I take it for geranted.

For more up to date scholars, you might consider:

R T France

Kingsbury, J. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel, chapter 1. Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983.

Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to St Mark, pg. 66 - 69, A & C Publishers, London, 1991.

Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (1991)

Joseph Fitzmyer

Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).

Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)

---

quote:

---

there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis

---

quote:

---

Jesus didn't claim to be messiah in the synoptics[.]

---

quote:

---

To describe the whole ministry of Jesus as 'unmessianic' is to ignore totally the plain evidence of the gospels in favour of a comlplex theory as to how that evidence came to be arranged. If there is any agreement among New Testament scholars today, it is in believing that Jesus acted with authority and believed himself to have been commissioned by God: it is difficult not to use the term 'messianic' to dsecribe such authority. And were the Church - or the evangelist - to have imposed a messianic interpretation on to totally unmessianic material, one would hardly have expected the messianic secret to have emerged: rather, one would have expected much clearer statements of Jesus' messiahship.

[...]

If we ask how Mark makes use of the secret, then it is important to notice that it functions in precisely the opposite way to what one expects: it serves a a means of revelation to the hearers/readers of the gospel.

---